The affirmations are based on the stable performance of theunderlying portfolio, the sufficient credit enhancement (CE)available to the notes, and the cushions available in the CLO'scash flow modeling results. As of the December 2015 trustee report,all collateral quality tests, concentration limitations andcoverage tests are passing, and there are no defaulted assets inthe portfolio. Fitch's cash flow analysis also indicates each classof notes is passing all nine interest rate and default timingscenarios at or above their current rating levels with cushions.

The loan portfolio par amount plus principal cash is approximately$774.6 million, compared to the target par balance of $770 millionat closing in February 2015, resulting in a marginal increase inthe CE levels. The weighted average spread (WAS) of the portfoliois 4.6%, versus a minimum WAS trigger of 3.7%, as reported by thetrustee. The portfolio, excluding cash, is invested in 95.7% seniorsecured loans and 4.3% second lien loans, with approximately 90.4%of the portfolio having either strong recovery prospects or aFitch-assigned Recovery Rating of 'RR2' or higher.

The Stable Outlook for each class reflects the expectation that thenotes have sufficient levels of credit protection to withstandpotential deterioration in the credit quality of the portfolio.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The ratings of the notes may be sensitive to the following: assetdefaults, significant negative credit migration, lower thanhistorically observed recoveries for defaulted assets, and breachesof concentration limitations or portfolio quality covenants. Fitchconducted rating sensitivity analysis on the closing date of ALMXII, incorporating increased levels of defaults and reduced levelsof recovery rates, among other sensitivities. Initial Key RatingDrivers and Rating Sensitivity are further described in the NewIssue Report published on Feb. 26, 2015.

ALM XII is an arbitrage cash flow collateralized loan obligation(CLO) that is managed by Apollo Credit Management (CLO), LLC. Thetransaction remains in its reinvestment period, which is scheduledto end in April 2019.

This review was conducted under the framework described in thereport 'Global Rating Criteria for CLOs and Corporate CDOs' usingFitch's Portfolio Credit Model (PCM) to project future default andrecovery levels for the underlying portfolio. These default andrecovery levels were then utilized in Fitch's cash flow model undervarious combinations of default timing and interest rate stressscenarios, as described in the report. The cash flow model wascustomized to reflect the transaction's structural features.

DUE DILIGENCE USAGE

No third-party due diligence was reviewed in relation to thisrating action.

Moody's issues provisional ratings in advance of the final sale offinancial instruments, but these ratings only represent Moody'spreliminary credit opinions. Upon a conclusive review of atransaction and associated documentation, Moody's will endeavor toassign definitive ratings. A definitive rating, if any, may differfrom a provisional rating.

RATINGS RATIONALE

Moody's provisional ratings of the Rated Notes address the expectedlosses posed to noteholders. The provisional ratings reflect therisks due to defaults on the underlying portfolio of assets, thetransaction's legal structure, and the characteristics of theunderlying assets.

ALM XVII, Ltd. is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes willbe collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first lien seniorsecured corporate loans. At least 90.0% of the portfolio mustconsist of senior secured loans and eligible investments, and up to10.0% of the portfolio may consist of second lien loans andunsecured loans. Moody's expects the portfolio to be approximately100% ramped as of the closing date.

Apollo Credit Management (CLO), LLC will direct the selection,acquisition and disposition of the assets on behalf of the Issuerand may engage in trading activity, including discretionarytrading, during the transaction's 4.5-year reinvestment period.Thereafter, the Manager may reinvest unscheduled principal paymentsand proceeds from sales of credit risk assets, subject to certainrestrictions.

In addition to the Rated Notes, the Issuer will issue preferredshares. The Issuer and/or Co-Issuer will also issue (i) fourclasses of delayed draw notes corresponding to each class of notesissued, totaling 36 classes of delayed draw notes and (ii) fourclasses of future funded preferred shares corresponding to thepreferred shares. The delayed draw notes and future fundedpreferred shares may be used to fund an additional issuance, are-pricing or a refinancing of the related class of notes orpreferred shares, as applicable. Moody's has not assignedprovisional ratings to the delayed draw notes or the future fundedpreferred shares.

The transaction incorporates interest and par coverage tests which,if triggered, divert interest and principal proceeds to pay downthe notes in order of seniority.

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based onthe Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3.2.1of the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized LoanObligations" rating methodology published in December 2015.

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's GlobalApproach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations" published inDecember 2015.

Factors That Would Lead to an Upgrade or Downgrade of the Rating:

The performance of the Rated Notes is subject to uncertainty. Theperformance of the Rated Notes is sensitive to the performance ofthe underlying portfolio, which in turn depends on economic andcredit conditions that may change. The Manager's investmentdecisions and management of the transaction will also affect theperformance of the Rated Notes.

Together with the set of modeling assumptions above, Moody'sconducted an additional sensitivity analysis, which was a componentin determining the ratings assigned to the Rated Notes. Thissensitivity analysis includes increased default probabilityrelative to the base case.

Below is a summary of the impact of an increase in defaultprobability (expressed in terms of WARF level) on the Rated Notes(shown in terms of the number of notch difference versus thecurrent model output, whereby a negative difference corresponds tohigher expected losses), assuming that all other factors are heldequal:

Moody's has affirmed the ratings on the transaction because keytransaction metrics are commensurate with the existing ratings. Therating action is the result of Moody's on-going surveillance ofcommercial real estate collateralized debt obligation (CRE CDO andRe-REMIC) transactions.

Ansonia CDO 2006-1 Ltd. is a static cash CRE CDO transaction backedby a portfolio of: i) commercial mortgage backed securities (CMBS)(96.7% of the collateral pool balance); and ii) real estateinvestment trust (REIT) debt (3.3%). As of the December 29, 2015payment date, the aggregate note balance of the transaction,including preferred shares, has decreased to $626.8 million from$806.7 million at issuance, with the pay-down now directed to thesenior most outstanding classes of notes, as a result of full andpartial amortization of the underlying collateral, and interestproceeds being reclassified as principal proceeds on creditimpaired securities.

Moody's has identified the following as key indicators of theexpected loss in CRE CDO transactions: the weighted average ratingfactor (WARF), the weighted average life (WAL), the weightedaverage recovery rate (WARR), and Moody's asset correlation (MAC).Moody's typically models these as actual parameters for staticdeals and as covenants for managed deals.

WARF is a primary measure of the credit quality of a CRE CDO pool.Moody's has updated its assessments for the collateral it does notrate. The rating agency modeled a bottom-dollar WARF of 5680,compared to 6589 at last review. The current ratings on theMoody's-rated collateral and the assessments of the non-Moody'srated collateral follows: Aaa-Aa3 and 10.9% compared to 6.9% atlast review; A1-A3 and 0.0% compared to 1.4% at last review;Baa1-Baa3 and 12.6% compared to 8.8% at last review; Ba1-Ba3 and8.4% compared to 6.9% at last review; B1-B3 and 8.0% compared to7.6% at last review; and Caa1-Ca/C and 60.1% compared to 68.4% atlast review.

Moody's modeled a WAL of 2.6 years, compared to 2.1 years at lastreview. The WAL is based on assumptions about look-through loanextensions on the underlying CMBS loan collateral.

Moody's modeled a fixed WARR of 1.5%, compared to 3.3% at lastreview.

Moody's modeled a MAC of 11.3%, compared to 100.0% at last review.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the ratings:

The performance of the notes is subject to uncertainty, because itis sensitive to the performance of the underlying portfolio, whichin turn depends on economic and credit conditions that are subjectto change. The servicing decisions of the master and specialservicer and surveillance by the operating advisor with respect tothe collateral interests and oversight of the transaction will alsoaffect the performance of the rated notes.

Moody's Parameter Sensitivities: Changes to any one or more of thekey parameters could have rating implications for the rated notes,although a change in one key parameter assumption could be offsetby a change in one or more of the other key parameter assumptions.The rated notes are particularly sensitive to changes in therecovery rate of the underlying collateral and credit assessments.Holding all other key parameters static, reducing the recovery rateto 0% would result in no modeled rating movement on the rated notes(e.g. one notch down implies a rating movement from Baa3 to Ba1).Increasing the recovery rate by 10% would result in no modeledrating movement on the rated notes (e.g. one notch up implies arating movement from Baa3 to Baa2).

The primary sources of uncertainty in Moody's assumptions are theextent of growth in the current macroeconomic environment given theweak recovery and commercial real estate property markets.Commercial real estate property values continue to improvemodestly, along with a rise in investment activity andstabilization in core property type performance. Limited newconstruction and moderate job growth have aided this improvement.However, sustained growth will not be possible until investmentincreases steadily for a significant period, non-performingproperties are cleared from the pipeline and fears of a euro arearecession abate.

Moody's ratings of the Rated Notes address the expected lossesposed to noteholders. The ratings reflect the risks due to defaultson the underlying portfolio of assets, the transaction's legalstructure, and the characteristics of the underlying assets.

Moody's rating of the Combination Notes addresses only the ultimatereceipt of the Exchangeable Combination Note Balance by the holdersof the Combination Notes. Moody's rating of the Combination Notesdoes not address any other payments or additional amounts that aholder of the Combination Notes may receive pursuant to theunderlying documents.

Apidos CLO XXIII is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued notes willbe collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first lien seniorsecured corporate loans. At least 96% of the portfolio must consistof senior secured loans and eligible investments (including cash),and up to 4% of the portfolio may consist of second lien loans andunsecured loans. The portfolio is approximately 85% ramped as ofthe closing date.

CVC Credit Partners, LLC (the "Manager") will direct the selection,acquisition and disposition of the assets on behalf of the Issuerand may engage in trading activity, including discretionarytrading, during the transaction's four and a half year reinvestmentperiod. Thereafter, the Manager may reinvest unscheduled principalpayments and proceeds from sales of credit risk assets, subject tocertain restrictions.

In addition to the Rated Notes, the Issuer will issue subordinatednotes.

The transaction incorporates interest and par coverage tests which,if triggered, divert interest and principal proceeds to pay downthe notes in order of seniority.

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based onthe Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3.2.1,Section 3.4 and Appendix 14 of the "Moody's Global Approach toRating Collateralized Loan Obligations" rating methodologypublished in December 2015.

For modeling purposes, Moody's used the following base-caseassumptions:

Par amount: $500,000,000

Diversity Score: 65

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2750

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.85%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 6.50%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 47.0%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 8 years

AUGUSTA FUNDING VI: Moody's Raises Rating on Cl. A-4 Bonds to Ba1-----------------------------------------------------------------Moody's Investors Service announced that it has upgraded theratings of these Bonds issued by Augusta Funding Limited VI:

The ratings assigned by Moody's to the Bonds are linked to severalfactors, including, but not limited to, the ratings of variousseries of perpetual and long-dated floating rate notes owned by theCompany ("FRNs") and the rating of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. asSwap Counterparty and will change upon changes in Moody's ratingsof these factors. The Bonds also benefit from a financialinsurance agreement entered into between the Company and MBIAInsurance Corporation, as a successor to Capital Markets AssuranceCorporation. The actions reflect the improvement in the creditquality of the FRNs. The current expected loss of the portfolio isconsistent with the expected loss implied by a Ba1 rating.

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action:

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody'sApproach to Rating Repackaged Securities" published in June 2015.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating:

The ratings will be sensitive to any change in the ratings ofvarious series of perpetual and long-dated floating rate notesowned by the Company ("FRNs"), the rating of MBIA InsuranceCorporation as the financial insurance agreement counterparty, andthe rating of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as Swap Counterparty.

In addition to the base case analysis, Moody's also conductedsensitivity analyses to test the impact of a number of defaultprobabilities on the rated notes. Below is a summary of the impactof different default probabilities (expressed in terms of WARF) onall of the rated notes (by the difference in the number of notchesversus the current model output, for which a positive differencecorresponds to lower expected loss):

BAYVIEW COMMERCIAL 2003-2: Moodys Cuts Cl. IO Debt Rating to B3---------------------------------------------------------------Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings on twelvetranches from five transactions, and downgraded the ratings onfifty-three tranches from fifteen transactions of small businessloans issued by Bayview Commercial Asset Trusts and BayviewCommercial Mortgage Pass-Through Trusts. The loans are securedprimarily by small commercial real estate properties in the U.S.owned by small businesses and investors.

The upgrades related to the 2004-1, 2004-2 and 2004-3 transactionswere primarily prompted by a build-up in credit enhancement due toincreasing reserve account balances relative to outstanding poolbalances, availability of excess spread and relatively stablecollateral performance. Available amounts in reserve accounts forthe 2004-1, 2004-2 and 2004-3 transactions increased to 30%, 22%and 18% of outstanding pool balances, respectively, as of theDecember 2015 distribution date from 23%, 17% and 15% of theoutstanding pool balance as of the December 2014 distribution date.The Class M-1 and M-2 tranches from the 2006-SP1 transaction wereupgraded due to increasing credit enhancement, leading to improvedloss coverage. The upgrade of the 2008-1 Class A-3 tranche was dueto the repayment of accrued interest shortfall and the strongcoverage of expected pool losses by credit enhancement; as well asMoody's expectation that no further interest shortfalls will beaccrued for this tranche.

The downgrades are primarily due to continued realized losses onthe underlying pools in combination with depleted creditenhancement from overcollateralization and subordinate tranches.For the 2007-6 transaction, the downgrade of the A-4B tranche islargely driven by a correction to the credit enhancement to accountfor the sequential payment of the A-4A and A-4B notes. Over thepast year, cumulative net losses for Bayview 2005-3, 2006-1,2006-SP1, 2006-3, 2006-4, 2006-SP2, 2007-2, 2007-3, 2007-4, 2007-6,2008-1, 2008-2, 2008-3 and 2008-4 increased to a range of 16% to32% as of the December 2015 distribution date, from a range of 15%to 30% as of the December 2014 distribution date, in each case as apercent of the original pool balance. For Bayview 2003-2,cumulative net losses have increased from 4 to 5% over the pastyear. As a result of continuing losses, Moody's believes that afull principal payment to lower subordinate tranches which havebeen downgraded to Ca or C ratings is unlikely.

The rating actions on certain of these transactions also took intoaccount corrections to the computation of excess spread.Previously, the computation of excess spread overstated thelifetime excess spread available for the 2003-2, 2004-1, 2007-4,2007-6, 2008-1, 2008-2, 2008-3, and 2008-4 transactions. Thesecomputation errors were mainly due to the cash flows to the IO andSIO notes being improperly accounted for in the excess spreadcalculation. The correction of the error had a negative impact for2004-1, but this was outweighed by the deal's increasing reserveaccount balance relative to the outstanding pool balance, leadingto upgrades for the transaction. The previous rating action on the2007-2 transaction was based on analysis that used an overstatedweighted average bond coupon, thereby understating the lifetimespread available to that transaction. While the correction of thiserror had a positive impact, this was overridden by the negativeeffect of the continued realized losses for the 2007-2 transactionas discussed above.

For the Bayview small business ABS collateral pools, excluding theCanadian transaction, delinquencies of 60 days or more, includingloans in foreclosure and REO, have improved slightly with theaverage deal experiencing a decrease in delinquencies of 0.7% overthe past 12 months. Delinquencies of 60 days or more ranged from11% to 22% of the outstanding pool balances as of December 2015distribution date, versus 10% to 26% as of December 2014distribution date. Average severities are still high in the 70% to80% range.

A key factor in Moody's loss projections is its evaluation andtreatment of modified loans. Bayview Loan Servicing has modifiedapproximately 41% to 69% of the loan balance classified as currentas of November 2015 in the deals affected by today's ratingactions. Most of these loans were delinquent before modificationand are therefore more likely to become delinquent thannon-modified loans in the future. Moody's evaluation of loan-leveldata indicates that these current, modified loans are two to threetimes as likely to become defaulted compared to current,non-modified loans. Moody's accounted for this likelihood in itsloss projection methodology described in the "Methodology" sectionbelow.

The current ratings reflect the likelihood of certificateholdersrecovering outstanding credit risk shortfalls for the bonds onwhich they exist. Even though available credit enhancement to acertificate may be high, recovery of interest shortfalls may takeseveral years for rated notes with outstanding shortfalls.Transactions with ratings that continue to be impacted by interestshortfalls include Bayview 2007-4, 2007-5, 2007-6, 2008-2, 2008-3,and 2008-4.

The upgrades reflect increased credit enhancement due toamortization and loan payoffs, a high percentage of defeased loans,and the pool's low leverage. Fitch modeled losses of 2.2% of theremaining pool; expected losses on the original pool balance total1.2%, including $9.4 million (1.1% of the original pool balance) inrealized losses to date. Fitch has designated one loan (5.7%) as aFitch Loan of Concern.

As of the December 2015 distribution date, eight loans remain andthe pool's aggregate principal balance has been reduced by 97.4% to$22 million from $842.2 million at issuance. Per the servicerreporting, three loans (35.6% of the pool) are defeased. Interestshortfalls were previously affecting classes up to class H, buthave since been recovered and are unlikely to occur again.

The only Fitch Loan of Concern is secured by a four buildingindustrial complex located in East Boston, MA. The complex,totalling 84,540 square feet (sf), includes two properties with asingle-tenant, triple-net (NNN) lease in place and two propertieswith multiple tenants. The landlord has struggled in the past withvacancy at the multi-tenant buildings; however, occupancy hasincreased to 96% as of September 2015. Per servicer reporting, theportfolio-wide net operating income (NOI) debt service coverageratio (DSCR) increased to 0.90x as of year-end (YE) 2014 from 0.87xYE 2013. The NOI DSCR has been below 0.86x since 2010 but the loanhas never been delinquent. The loan is fully amortizing andmatures in August of 2017.

The largest loan in the pool is secured by a 220,330 sf shoppingcenter located in Citrus Heights, CA. Tenants include Marshalls(15% of GLA), Sprouts Farmers Market (14% of GLA), and PetSmart(10% of GLA). As of the October 2015 rent roll, the center was 98%occupied. Per the servicer, the NOI DSCR was reported as 2.60x asof September 2015.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Rating Outlooks on classes H through M are stable due toincreasing credit enhancement and overall stable collateralperformance. Although the remaining rated classes have high creditenhancement, additional upgrades are not likely in the near termdue to significant concentration risk with only eight loansremaining.

DUE DILIGENCE USAGE

No third party due diligence was provided or reviewed in relationto this rating action.

BLADE ENGINE 2006-1: S&P Raises Rating on 2 Tranches to BB----------------------------------------------------------Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its ratings on the classA-1, A-2, and B notes from Blade Engine Securitization Ltd.'sseries 2006-1 and removed them from CreditWatch, where they wereplaced with negative implications on Oct. 27, 2015.

The rating actions reflect the rated notes' increased loan-to-value(LTV) ratios, the underlying engine portfolio's deteriorated rentaland residual cash-generating ability, that a significant number ofengines have been off-lease for more than six months, that theclass E certificate minimum distributions are payable before therated notes' scheduled principal payment (though after the ratednotes' minimum principal payment), hedge payments, and futureinterest rate risk. As a result, the rated notes' creditenhancement can no longer support the prior rating levels.

The aircraft engine portfolio consisted of 40 engines as ofDecember 2015. The majority of the engines are powered onend-of-production aircraft, which typically diminishes the engines're-leasing and sale prospects. With the lower of the mean andmedian (LMM) of the updated maintenance-adjusted base values of theportfolio as of June 2015 and with the adjustment made for severalnon-serviceable engines and depreciation from June 2015 to December2015 (which results in a $240 million adjusted engine value), theLTV of the class A-1 and A-2 notes rose to about 86% and the LTV ofthe class B notes rose to about 93% as of Dec. 15, 2015.

In recent payment periods, the class A-1 and A-2 notes had onlyreceived minimum principal payments while the class B notes had notreceived any minimum principal payments. The class B notes'interest had been covered by the junior cash reserve. The lastclass E certificate minimum distribution was made in June 2014. Asof Dec. 15, 2015, the junior cash reserve had a balance of $3.11million and the class B notes' interest was $52,495.

The class A-1 and B notes have floating-rate coupons. Thetransaction currently has an interest rate hedge, which causes acash flow drag to the deal ($516,730 as of the Dec. 15, 2015,payment date). In S&P's analysis, it considered both rising andforward interest rate scenarios.

S&P will continue to review whether, in its view, the ratingsassigned to the notes remain consistent with the credit enhancementavailable to support them, and S&P will take further rating actionsas it deems necessary.

Moody's upgraded the notes due to the full amortization of highcredit-risk assets, resulting in a material improvement in theClass A/B overcollateralization ratio since last review. Moody'shas affirmed the ratings on the transaction because its keytransaction metrics are commensurate with existing ratings. Theaffirmation is the result of Moody's on-going surveillance ofcommercial real estate collateralized debt obligation(CRE CDO CLO)transactions.

CapitalSource 2006-A is a cash transaction whose reinvestmentperiod ended in January 2012. The transaction is backed by aportfolio of: i) commercial real estate ("CRE") whole loans (97.1%of the collateral pool balance); ii) asset-backed securities("ABS") (2.5%); and iii) a CRE b-note (0.4%). As of the trustee's24 December 2015 report, the aggregate note balance of thetransaction, including preferred shares, is $471.0 million,compared to $1.3 billion at issuance, with paydowns directed to thesenior-most classes of notes, including certain pari-passuclasses.

The Issuer had its Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) statusrevoked on June 18, 2009, therefore federal and state income taxesbecame payable pursuant to the transaction's Indenture. However,NorthStar Realty Finance Corp. ("NorthStar") stated that in July2010 it purchased classes J, K and Equity and became the collateralmanager delegate as well as special servicer delegate. NorthStarsubsequently was approved as the replacement special servicer forthe transaction. NorthStar is a qualified REIT and holder of thetransaction's equity, and has decided to no longer escrow for thepayment of such taxes as of October 2011. However, based ondocumentation received to date, Moody's modeling continues toassume income taxes are deducted in the cash flow waterfall. Sinceall interest coverage tests are passing, the income taxes areprimarily absorbed by the non-rated equity classes.

No assets had defaulted as of the trustee's 24 December 2015report.

Moody's has identified the following as key indicators of theexpected loss in CRE CDO CLO transactions: the weighted averagerating factor (WARF), the weighted average life (WAL), the weightedaverage recovery rate (WARR), and Moody's asset correlation (MAC).Moody's typically models these as actual parameters for staticdeals and as covenants for managed deals.

WARF is a primary measure of the credit quality of a CRE CDO CLOpool. Moody's has updated its assessments for the collateral itdoes not rate. The rating agency modeled a bottom-dollar WARF of7100, compared to 6877 at last review. The current ratings on theMoody's-rated collateral and the assessments of the non-Moody'srated collateral follow: Aaa-Aa3 (2.8%, compared to 0.6% at lastreview); A1-A3 (1.0%, compared to 2.2% at last review); Baa1-Baa3(1.2%, compared to 1.1% at last review); Ba1-Ba3 (2.1%, compared to2.5% at last review); B1-B3 (0.0%, compared to 1.8% at lastreview); and Caa1-Ca/C (92.8%, compared to 91.8% at last review).

Moody's modeled a WAL of 2.0 years, compared to 2.8 years at lastreview. The WAL is based on assumptions about extensions on theunderlying collateral.

Moody's modeled a fixed WARR of 44.7%, compared to 46.3% at lastreview.

Moody's modeled a MAC of 99.9%, the same as at last review.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating:

The performance of the notes is subject to uncertainty, because itis sensitive to the performance of the underlying portfolio, whichin turn depends on economic and credit conditions that are subjectto change. The servicing decisions of the master and specialservicer and surveillance by the operating advisor with respect tothe collateral interests and oversight of the transaction will alsoaffect the performance of the rated notes.

Moody's Parameter Sensitivities: Changes to any one or more of thekey parameters could have rating implications for some of the ratednotes, although a change in one key parameter assumption could beoffset by a change in one or more of the other key parameterassumptions. The rated notes are particularly sensitive to changesin the recovery rates of the underlying collateral and creditassessments. Reducing the recovery rates of the collateral pool by10.0% would result in an average modeled rating movement on therated notes of zero to ten notches downward (e.g., one notch downimplies a ratings movement of Baa3 to Ba1). Increasing the recoveryrate of the collateral pool by 10.0% would result in an averagemodeled rating movement on the rated notes of zero to twelvenotches upward (e.g., one notch upward implies a ratings movementof Baa3 to Baa2).

The primary sources of uncertainty in Moody's assumptions are theextent of growth in the current macroeconomic environment given theweak recovery and certain commercial real estate property markets.Commercial real estate property values continue to improvemodestly, along with a rise in investment activity andstabilization in core property type performance. Limited newconstruction and moderate job growth have aided this improvement.However, sustained growth will not be possible until investmentincreases steadily for a significant period, non-performingproperties are cleared from the pipeline and fears of a euro arearecession abate.

CHASE MORTGAGE 2005-S1: Moody’s Hikes Cl. 1-A5 Debt Rating From B2--------------------------------------------------------------------Moody's Investors Service has downgraded the ratings of twotranches and upgraded the ratings of five tranches backed by PrimeJumbo RMBS loans, issued by miscellaneous issuers.

The actions are a result of the recent performance of theunderlying pools and reflect Moody's updated loss expectations onthe pools. The ratings downgraded are due to the weaker performanceof the underlying collateral and the erosion of enhancementavailable to the bonds. The ratings upgraded are a result ofimproving performance of the related pools and an increase incredit enhancement available to the bonds.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating:

Ratings in the US RMBS sector remain exposed to the high level ofmacroeconomic uncertainty, and in particular the unemployment rate.The unemployment rate fell to 5.0% in December 2015 from 5.6% inDecember 2014. Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range of4.5% to 5.5% for the 2016 year. Deviations from this centralscenario could lead to rating actions in the sector. House pricesare another key driver of US RMBS performance. Moody's expectshouse prices to continue to rise in 2016. Lower increases thanMoody's expects or decreases could lead to negative rating actions.Finally, performance of RMBS continues to remain highly dependenton servicer procedures.

Any change resulting from servicing transfers or other policy orregulatory change can impact the performance of thesetransactions.

The expected ratings are based on information provided by theissuer as of Jan. 14, 2016. Fitch does not expect to rate the$29,520,000ab interest-only class X-E, $29,521,412ab interest-onlyclass X-F, $17,969,000a class H or the $29,521,412 class J.

The certificates represent the beneficial ownership interest in thetrust, primary assets of which are 49 loans secured by 119commercial properties having an aggregate principal balance ofapproximately $1.027 billion as of the cut-off date. The loanswere contributed to the trust by German American CapitalCorporation, Cantor Commercial Real Estate lending, L.P., JeffriesLoanCore LLC, and Ladder Capital Finance LLC.

Fitch reviewed a comprehensive sample of the transaction'scollateral, including site inspections on 78% of the properties bybalance and asset summary reviews and cash flow analysis of 87.4%of the pool.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Fitch Leverage Higher than Recent Deals: Fitch Stressed DSCR on thetrust-specific debt is 1.10x which is worse than the 2014 and 2015averages for other Fitch-rated U.S. multiborrower deals of 1.19xand 1.18x, respectively. Fitch Stressed LTV on the trust-specificdebt is 113.8%, which is higher than the 2014 and 2015 averages forFitch-rated deals of 106.2% and 109.3%, respectively.

High Proportion of Interest Only Loans: 40.5% of the loans withinthe pool are full interest only, including seven of the top 10.This is higher than the average for other Fitch-rated U.S.multiborrower deals of 20.1% in 2014 and 23.3% in 2015. 43.8% ofthe loans in the pool are partial interest only, which is in linewith the average for other Fitch-rated U.S. multiborrower deals of42.8% in 2014 and 43.1% in 2015. Likewise, the pool is scheduledto pay down by 7.7%, which is less than average when compared toother Fitch-rated U.S. multiborrower deals of 12% in 2014 and 11.7%in 2015.

Strong Collateral Quality: Five loans totaling 25.2% of the poolbalance are secured by properties receiving a property qualitygrade of 'A-' or better, including four the top 10 loans (PromenadeGateway, 32 Avenue of the Americas, Netflix HQ 2, and FedExBrooklyn).

RATING SENSITIVITIES

For this transaction, Fitch's net cash flow (NCF) was 16.7% belowthe most recent year's net operating income (NOI; for propertiesfor which a full year NOI was provided, excluding properties thatwere stabilizing during this period). Unanticipated furtherdeclines in property-level NCF could result in higher defaults andloss severities on defaulted loans, and could result in potentialrating actions on the certificates.

Fitch evaluated the sensitivity of the ratings assigned to COMM2016-CCRE28 certificates and found that the transaction displaysaverage sensitivity to further declines in NCF. In a scenario inwhich NCF declined a further 20% from Fitch's NCF, a downgrade ofthe junior 'AAAsf' certificates to 'A-sf' could result. In a moresevere scenario, in which NCF declined a further 30% from Fitch'sNCF, a downgrade of the junior 'AAAsf' certificates to 'BBBsf'could result. The presale report includes a detailed explanationof additional stresses and sensitivities on page 11.

DUE DILIGENCE USAGE

Fitch was provided with third-party due diligence information fromErnst and Young LLP. The third-party due diligence information wasprovided on Form ABS Due Diligence-15E and focused on a comparisonand re-computation of certain characteristics with respect to eachof the 49 mortgage loans. Fitch considered this information in itsanalysis and the findings did not have an impact on our analysis.

The ratings are based on a review by DBRS of the followinganalytical considerations:

-- Transaction capital structure, proposed ratings and form andsufficiency of available credit enhancement.

-- Credit enhancement is in the form of overcollateralization,subordination, amounts held in the reserve fund and excess spread.Credit enhancement levels are sufficient to support theDBRS-projected expected cumulative net loss assumption undervarious stress scenarios.

-- The ability of the transaction to withstand stressed cash flowassumptions and repay investors according to the terms under whichthey have invested. For this transaction, the rating addresses thepayment of timely interest on a monthly basis and the payment ofprincipal by the legal final maturity date.

-- CPS has made considerable improvements to the collectionsprocess, including management changes, upgraded systems andsoftware, as well as implementation of new policies and proceduresfocused on maintaining compliance.

-- CPS will be subject to ongoing monitoring of certain processesby the FTC.

-- The legal structure and presence of legal opinions that addressthe true sale of the assets to the Issuer, the non-consolidation ofthe special-purpose vehicle with CPS, that the trust has a validfirst-priority security interest in the assets and the consistencywith DBRS’s Legal Criteria for U.S. Structured Financemethodology.

-- S&P's expectation that, under a moderate stress scenario of 1.65x its expected net loss level, the preliminary ratings on the class A and B notes will not decline by more than one

rating category during the first year, and the preliminary ratings on the class C through F notes will not decline by more than two rating categories during the first year, all else being equal, which is consistent with S&P's credit stability criteria.

-- The preliminary rated notes' underlying credit enhancement in the form of subordination, overcollateralization (O/C), a

reserve account, and excess spread for the class A, B, C, D,

E, and F notes.

-- The timely interest and principal payments made to the preliminary rated notes under S&P's stressed cash flow modeling scenarios, which it believes are appropriate for the assigned preliminary ratings.

-- The transaction's payment and credit enhancement structure, which includes a noncurable performance trigger.

The upgrades follow continued deleveraging of the transaction asthe underlying collateral continues to amortize. Since the lastrating action, there has been approximately $61.9 million incollateral paydown. Of the remaining assets, 25.8% of theunderlying collateral has been upgraded and 11% has been downgradeda weighted-average of 5.42 and 2.83 notches, respectively. Theclass A, B and C notes have all paid in full. The most senior note,class D, is current on interest payments, while all other classesare experiencing interest shortfalls due to the failure of theclass C/D interest coverage and over collateralization coveragetests. Hedge payments will expire in October of this year and thepool has become increasingly concentrated with 31 assets and 16obligors remaining.

This transaction was analysed under the framework described inFitch's 'Global Rating Criteria for Structured Finance CDOs' usingthe Portfolio Credit Model (PCM) for projecting future defaultlevels for the underlying portfolio. Fitch also analyzed thestructure's sensitivity to the assets that are distressed,experiencing interest shortfalls, and those with near-termmaturities, and conducted a look-through analysis of the underlyingportfolio. Based on this analysis, the class D notes were believedto be sufficiently protected.

Fitch further analyzed each class' sensitivity to the default ofthe distressed assets ('CCC' and below). As noted above, the poolhas continued to deleverage and several of the underlying bonds arefirst-pay pieces or fully covered by defeasance. In addition tothe upgrade of the class D notes, the class E notes were upgradedto 'CCsf' from 'Csf' to indicate that default is consideredprobable, but not inevitable. However, Fitch recognizes the highprobability of default for a number of the underlying assets andthe expected limited recovery upon default. For this reason, theclass F through H notes have been affirmed at 'Csf', indicatingthat default is inevitable.

The rating of the preferred shares addresses the likelihood thatinvestors will receive the ultimate return of the aggregateoutstanding rated balance by the legal final maturity date. Theassigned rating for the preferred shares indicates that default isconsidered inevitable, as they are undercollateralized.

The affirmations are a result of continued paydown and stableperformance. All remaining loans in the pool are fully defeased.Approximately 78.7% of the defeased loans (six loans) mature inJune 2016, and the remaining loan (21.3%) matures in November 2019.

As of the November 2015 distribution date, the pool's aggregateprincipal balance has been reduced by 98.7% to $11.6 million from$885.7 million at issuance. The pool has experienced $24.8 million(2.8% of the original pool balance) in realized losses to date. Interest shortfalls are currently affecting classes M through N.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Rating Outlooks on classes K and L are Stable due to sufficientcredit enhancement and continued paydown from defeased collateral.Class M has realized losses and will remain at 'D'.

DUE DILIGENCE USAGE

No third-party due diligence was provided or reviewed in relationto this rating action.

The actions are a result of the recent performance of theunderlying pools and reflect Moody's updated loss expectations onthe pools. The ratings upgraded are a result of improvingperformance of the related pools and an increase in creditenhancement available to the bonds.

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "US RMBSSurveillance Methodology" published in November 2013.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating:

Ratings in the US RMBS sector remain exposed to the high level ofmacroeconomic uncertainty, and in particular the unemployment rate. The unemployment rate fell to 5% in December 2015 from 5.6% inDecember 2014. Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range of4.5% to 5.5% for the 2016 year. Deviations from this centralscenario could lead to rating actions in the sector.

House prices are another key driver of US RMBS performance. Moody'sexpects house prices to continue to rise in 2016. Lower increasesthan Moody's expects or decreases could lead to negative ratingactions.

Finally, performance of RMBS continues to remain highly dependenton servicer procedures. Any change resulting from servicingtransfers or other policy or regulatory change can impact theperformance of these transactions.

The certificates represent the beneficial ownership in the trust,primary assets of which are 35 loans secured by 40 Canadiancommercial properties. The loans were contributed to the trust byInstitutional Mortgage Capital, LP.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

The affirmations are based on the stable performance of theunderlying collateral pool since issuance. As of the January 2016remittance, the pool has had no delinquent or specially servicedloans. The pool's aggregate principal balance has been paid downby approximately 10.5% since issuance. There are no partial orfull-term interest-only loans in the pool. Approximately 90.3% ofthe pool has full or partial recourse to the loans' borrowers andsponsors.

Given the current low price of oil and the dependence of Alberta onthe oil industry, Fitch is cognizant of the potential risks realestate in Alberta may have. The pool has seven loans located inAlberta, representing 18.9% of the pool. However, the six largestof the seven loans have full or partial recourse to the guarantorsand/or sponsors; the other loan is part of a crossed U-Haulself-storage portfolio. The three Fort McMurray multifamilyproperties (8.8% of the pool), which are not crossed, haveinstitutional REIT sponsorship. The two Calgary office propertieshave granular tenancy.

The largest loan of the pool (10.8% of the pool balance) is securedby a 362,577 square foot (sf) enclosed shopping center located inDollard-des-Ormeaux (Montreal), Quebec. The property is anchoredby Canadian Tire and Super C grocery. The pari passu loan is fullrecourse to the borrowing entity and its owner and is partialrecourse to the sponsor.

The second largest loan (9.1%) is secured by the Merivale Mall, a225,082 square foot (sf) enclosed shopping center located inOttawa, Ontario. The property, which was built in 1977 andrenovated in 1994, is anchored by Farm Boy and Sport Chek. Thepari passu loan is full recourse to the borrowing entity andpartial recourse to the sponsor. Discount retailer Marshallsopened in 2015.

The third largest loan (8.8%) is the Shoppers Drug Mart Portfoliowhich consists of eight cross-collateralized and cross-defaultedloans. Each loan is secured by a retail property fully leased byShoppers Drug Mart. The portfolio consists of 141,093 sf and islocated across Ontario in Ottawa, London, and Windsor. Leaseexpirations for the portfolio range from 2021 to 2031.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Although all rated classes maintain Stable Outlooks, Fitch willcontinue to monitor the properties exposed to the energy sector inaddition to reviewing the year-end 2015 reporting when provided bythe servicer.

DUE DILIGENCE USAGE

No third-party due diligence was provided or reviewed in relationto this rating action.

The upgrade to class F reflects increased credit enhancement to theclass from loan payoffs as well as better than expected recoverieson the resolved specially serviced assets.

Fitch modeled losses of 34% of the remaining pool; expected losseson the original pool balance total 4%, including $86.6 million (3%of the original pool balance) in realized losses to date. The poolis very concentrated with only 19 assets remaining; approximately73% of which are backed by retail properties. Fitch has designatednine loans (53.7%) as Fitch Loans of Concern, which includes sixspecially serviced assets (46.4%).

As of the December 2015 distribution date, the pool's aggregateprincipal balance has been reduced by 97% to $86.8 million from$2.88 billion at issuance. Per the servicer reporting, one loan(0.9% of the pool) is defeased. Interest shortfalls are currentlyaffecting classes H through NR.

The largest contributor to expected losses is the real estate owned(REO) Southbridge Mall (10.4% of the pool), a 223,000 sf malllocated in Mason City, IA, which is located near the Iowa,Minnesota border, about halfway between Des Moines and Minneapolis. Foreclosure was completed and title transferred in December 2012. The mall is anchored by Younkers (22% of NRA through 2019). As ofthe July 2015 rent roll, the property was reported to be 52%occupied after JC Penney (22% of the NRA) vacated in April 2015,prior to its lease maturity. Local officials are reportedlyworking on a development plan, which would involve leasing andre-purposing the former JC Penney space into a newhockey/entertainment venue. Any marketing of the property for saleby the special servicer is not expected until at least secondquarter 2016.

The next largest contributor to expected losses is the REO IndianRiver Office Building (11.5%), a 94,000 sf medical office propertylocated in Vero Beach, FL. The loan transferred to specialservicing in January 2014 due to imminent default. Foreclosure wascompleted and title transferred in May 2015. The property begansuffering occupancy declines in 2011 most likely due to increasedcompetition from newer properties in the area. As of the November2015 rent roll, the property was approximately 52% leased. Property management is focused on cleaning up and leasing theproperty. The property is expected to be imminently marketed forsale.

The third largest contributor to expected losses is the REO formerHarley Davidson Center (10.2%), a 104,000 sf retail propertylocated in Las Vegas, NV. Foreclosure was completed and titletransferred in September 2015. The loan was unable to repay at itsmaturity after its largest tenant, Las Vegas Harley Davidson (64%of NRA), vacated the property at lease expiration in January 2015. The special servicer is attempting to lease up the vacant spaceprior to marketing the property for sale.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Class F was assigned a Stable Outlook. Upgrades to the class werelimited due to the concentration of the pool with the majorityconsidered Fitch Loans of Concern, including six specially servicedassets. Further, 46% of the pool isn't scheduled to mature untilat least 2019.

Class G may be upgraded in the future should specially servicedassets be resolved with limited losses. Class H may be subject tofurther downgrade as additional losses are realized.

DUE DILIGENCE USAGE

No third-party due diligence was provided or reviewed in relationto this rating action.

The affirmations of the majority of classes are due to overallstable performance since Fitch's last rating action. Fitch modeledlosses of 8.4% of the remaining pool; expected losses on theoriginal pool balance total 12.8%, including $181.7 million (7.1%of the original pool balance) in realized losses to date. Fitch hasdesignated 39 loans (42.7%) as Fitch Loans of Concern, whichincludes three specially serviced assets (4.8%). The downgrades toclasses F and G are due to higher certainty of losses from thespecially serviced loans.

As of the December 2015 distribution date, the pool's aggregateprincipal balance has been reduced by 32.2% to $1.72 billion from$2.54 billion at issuance. Per the servicer reporting, one loan(0.3% of the pool) is defeased. Interest shortfalls are currentlyaffecting classes F through NR.

The largest contributor to expected losses is the North Hills Mallloan (8.2% of the pool), which is secured by a 577,383 square foot(sf) regional lifestyle center located in Raleigh, NC within theResearch Triangle. The property is anchored by J.C. Penney, RegalEntertainment, REI, and Fitness Connection with lease expirationsin March 2018, May 2020, November 2020, and December 2019,respectively. The anchor tenant Target is not part of thecollateral. In addition to the retail component, there is a 101,423sf office component, which is part of the collateral, and a200-room Renaissance Hotel which is not part of the collateral. JCPenney is not listed on the recently published store closure listand reported trailing 12-month September 2015 sales of $83 per sf.The mall is 98.4% occupied as of September 2015. There isapproximately 7% lease rollover in 2016 and 8% in 2017. Per Reis,as of third quarter 2015 (3Q15), the Raleigh-Durham retail markethad a vacancy rate of 7.8%.

The next largest contributor to expected losses is thespecially-serviced Clark Tower loan (3.5%), which is secured by aClass B, 671,577 sf office property located in Memphis, TN. Thelargest tenants are Concorde Career Colleges, Inc. (10%),expiration August 2021; CB Richard Ellis/Trammell Crow (8%),expiration March 2016, Thompson Dunavant (4%), expiration March2019, and Wade Hartfield Enterprises (3%), expiration September2020. No update was provided on a CB Richard Ellis/Trammell Crowlease renewal. The loan has been in special servicing sinceSeptember 2013 when occupancy declined to 66% mainly due to thetenant, FDIC, vacating its space in 2012. The loan was modified inJuly 2015: the modification terms include balance split into an Anote $43.5 million and B-Note $16.9 million (Hope Note), a borrowercontribution of $5.7 million in new equity, interest ratereduction, and two one-year maturity extension options. As ofDecember 2015, the property remains 67% occupied with average rent$17 per sf. There is approximately 16% upcoming rollover in 2016.Per Reis, as of 3Q15, the East Memphis/Germantown retail submarketvacancy is 11.9% with average asking rent $16.63 per sf. Thespecial servicer continues to monitor the master servicer'sboarding of the new/modified loan terms and cash managementwaterfall and the loan is expected to return to the master servicerin late January 2016.

The third largest contributor to expected losses is The MilburnHotel loan (1.5%), which is secured by a hotel property consistingof 121 units located on the upper west side in New York City onWest 76th street. The most recent STR report available from themaster servicer is as of June 2014, when the property was 78%occupied with ADR and RevPAR of $256 and $201 respectively. Theloan is on the master servicer's watchlist due to declines in roomrevenue and high operating expenses. A more recent STR report wasrequested but was not available. While the Fitch value based oncurrent reported cash flow and a stressed cap rate indicates lossesare possible, given the location and asset quality, losses areunlikely to be incurred.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Rating Outlooks on classes A-4 through A-J remain Stable due toincreasing credit enhancement and continued paydown. Although thecredit enhancement is increasing for the A-M classes, thetransaction has a large concentration of retail properties, higherloan to value (LTVs) on the larger top 15 loans, and largeconcentration of 2017 loan maturities. Distressed classes may besubject to further downgrades should losses exceed Fitch'sexpectations or additional assets transfer to special servicing.

DUE DILIGENCE USAGE

No third-party due diligence was provided or reviewed in relationto this rating action.

The expected ratings are based on information provided by theissuer as of Jan. 14, 2016. Fitch does not expect to rate the$58,300,000 class G.

The certificates represent the beneficial interest in a trust thatholds a five-year, fixed rate, interest-only $585 million mortgageloan secured by the fee and leasehold interests in 30 hotelproperties with a total of 7,236 rooms located in 16 states. Thesponsor of the loan is Atrium Holding Company. The loan wasoriginated by JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (rated'A+'/'F1'/Stable Outlook).

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Diverse Portfolio: The portfolio exhibits geographic diversity,with 30 properties located across 16 states; no state representsmore than 15.2% of portfolio cash flow. The top 10 propertiesaccount for approximately 54.0% of the portfolio cash flow and39.0% of the total keys.

Asset Quality and Age: The thirty properties comprising theportfolio have an average age of 23.5 years (built from 1979-2000)which is considered an older vintage. The portfolio's assets arewell maintained, with $258.9 million ($35,785 per key) of capitalimprovements spent from 2005 through November 2015. In addition,$125.2 million ($17,300 per key) in capital improvements arebudgeted through 2020.

High Trust Leverage: Fitch's stressed DSCR and loan-to-value (LTV)ratios for the trust component of the debt are 1.04x and 103.0%,respectively.

National Franchise Flags: Twenty nine of the 30 hotels arefranchised with Hilton, Marriott, Intercontinental Hotel Group(IHG), Carlson Rezidor, and Starwood and benefit from theirrespective loyalty point and reservations systems. The EmbassySuites by Hilton represents the largest brand, with 34.5% of theportfolio's total keys and 47.1% of the portfolio's TTM November2015 net cash flow (NCF). The remaining brands include Marriott,Renaissance, Holiday Inn, Hilton, Sheraton, Homewood Suites,Hampton Inn & Suites, Crowne Plaza, Radisson and one independentlyoperated hotel.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Fitch found that the 'AAAsf' class could withstand an approximate72.5% decrease to the most recent actual net cash flow (NCF) priorto experiencing $1 of loss to the 'AAAsf' rated class. Fitchperformed several stress scenarios in which the Fitch NCF wasstressed. Fitch determined that a 68.0% reduction in Fitch'simplied NCF would cause the notes to break even at a 1.0x debtservice coverage ratio (DSCR), based on the actual debt service.

Fitch evaluated the sensitivity of the ratings for class A andfound that a 15% decline in Fitch's implied NCF would result in aone-category downgrade, while a 45% decline would result in adowngrade to below investment grade.

The Rating Sensitivity section in the presale report includes adetailed explanation of additional stresses and sensitivities. KeyRating Drivers and Rating Sensitivities are further described inthe accompanying presale report.

DUE DILIGENCE USAGE

Fitch was provided with third-party due diligence information fromErnst and Young, LLP. The third-party due diligence information wasprovided on ABS Due Diligence Form-15E and focused on a comparisonand re-computation of certain characteristics with respect to themortgage loan and related mortgaged properties in the data file.Fitch considered this information in its analysis, and the findingsdid not have an impact on Fitch's analysis.

The certificate issuance is a commercial mortgage-backed securitiestransaction backed by one five-year, fixed-rate commercial mortgageloan totaling $585.0 million, secured by cross-collateralized andcross-defaulted mortgages and deeds of trust on the borrowers' feeand leasehold interests in 30 full-service, limited-service, andextended-stay hotels and by a first-lien mortgage encumbering allof the operating lessees' rights in the properties.

The preliminary ratings are based on information as of Jan. 19,2016. Subsequent information may result in the assignment of finalratings that differ from the preliminary ratings.

The preliminary ratings reflect S&P's view of the collateral'shistoric and projected performance, the sponsor's and manager'sexperience, the trustee-provided liquidity, the loan's terms, andthe transaction's structure. S&P determined that the loan has abeginning and ending loan-to-value (LTV) ratio of 94.6%, based onStandard & Poor's value.

(i) The issuer will issue the certificates to qualifiedinstitutional buyers in line with Rule 144A of the Securities Actof 1933. (ii) Notional balance. The notional amount of the class X-CP andX-NCP certificates will be reduced by the aggregate amount ofprincipal distributions and realized losses allocated to the classA, class B, class C, and class D certificates.

The upgrade reflects the overall improved performance of thetransaction and high concentration of defeasance (44% of thetransaction). The downgrades are due to incurred losses on thedistressed classes. Fitch modeled losses of 5.1% of the remainingpool; expected losses on the original pool balance total 13.8%,including $316.5 million (10.5% of the original pool balance) inrealized losses to date. Fitch has designated 18 loans (8.4%) asFitch Loans of Concern, which includes four specially servicedassets (1.9%).

There are 126 loans (98.3% of the pool) scheduled to mature by theend of 2016. The bulk of the maturities (95.1%) are concentratedin the last four months of the year. This includes 12 loans(44.2%) which are fully defeased.

As of the December 2015 distribution date, the pool's aggregateprincipal balance has been reduced by 35.8% to $1.94 billion from$3.02 billion at issuance. Interest shortfalls are currentlyaffecting class A-J.

The largest contributor to expected losses is thespecially-serviced Triangle Town Center - Subordinate Tranche loan(1.3% of the pool). The B-note contributed to the trust issubordinate to a $108.4 million A-note in the LBUBS 2006-C1transaction. The loan is secured by a mall and lifestyle center inRaleigh, North Carolina. It is owned and operated by CBL &Associates Properties and the non-collateral anchor tenants includeDillard's, Belk, Macy's, Saks Fifth Avenue and Sears. The loan,which was originally scheduled to mature in December 2015,transferred to special servicing in September 2015 for imminentdefault and is now delinquent. As of June 2015, net operatingincome debt service coverage ratio (NOI DSCR) for the combined Aand B note was 0.75x. As of the September 2015 rent roll, occupancydeclined to 86% from 97% at year-end 2014. The mall continues toface competition from a nearby mall approximately 10 miles away,contributing to leasing challenges within the lifestyle componentof the mall.

The next largest contributor to expected losses is a portfolio of10 mobile home parks (2.3%) totaling 1,649 pads located inMichigan, Florida and Ohio. Fitch has identified this loan as aFitch Loan of Concern. The portfolio has historicallyunderperformed underwriting at issuance. As of June 2015 portfoliooccupancy was 78% with NOI DSCR of 0.87x, as compared to 85%occupancy and NOI DSCR of 1.27x at issuance. Of the 10 mobile homeparks, seven of the properties have NOI insufficient to cover debtservice, including three properties with NOI DSCR below 0.65x as ofJune 2015. The loan shares the same sponsor as the third largestcontributor to losses. The loan remains current as of the December2015 remittance and has not been delinquent during the life of theloan.

The third largest contributor to expected losses is a portfolio ofthree mobile home parks (1.1%) totaling 1,150 pads located inwestern Michigan. Fitch has identified this loan as a Fitch Loanof Concern. Performance of the portfolio continues to deterioratesince issuance. As of June 2015 portfolio occupancy declined to63% with NOI DSCR of 0.89x as compared to occupancy of 68% and NOIDSCR of 1.27x at issuance. The loan shares the same sponsor as thesecond largest contributor to losses. The loan remains current asof the December 2015 remittance and has not been delinquent duringthe life of the loan.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Rating Outlooks remain Stable due to increasing credit enhancementand continued delevering of the transaction through amortizationand repayment of maturing loans. Fitch applied various NOI stressscenarios when considering the upgrade to account for refinancerisk related to loans maturing this year.

DUE DILIGENCE USAGE

No third-party due diligence was provided or reviewed in relationto this rating action.

LightPoint CLO VII, Ltd., issued in May 2007, is a collateralizedloan obligation (CLO) backed primarily by a portfolio of seniorsecured loans. The transaction's reinvestment period ended in May2014.

RATINGS RATIONALE

These rating actions are primarily a result of deleveraging of thesenior notes and an increase in the transaction'sover-collateralization (OC) ratios since June 2015. The Class A-1notes have been paid down by approximately 21.0% or $46.5 millionsince then. Based on the trustee's December 2015 report, the OCratios for the Class A, B, C and D notes are reported at 134.9%,119.7%, 110.7% and 103.3%, respectively, versus June 2015 levels of128.2%, 116.3%, 108.9% and 102.8%, respectively.

Factors that Would Lead to an Upgrade or Downgrade of the Rating:

This transaction is subject to a number of factors andcircumstances that could lead to either an upgrade or downgrade ofthe ratings:

1) Macroeconomic uncertainty: CLO performance is subject to a)uncertainty about credit conditions in the general economy and b)the large concentration of upcoming speculative-grade debtmaturities, which could make refinancing difficult for issuers.

2) Collateral Manager: Performance can also be affected positivelyor negatively by a) the manager's investment strategy and behaviorand b) differences in the legal interpretation of CLO documentationby different transactional parties owing to embedded ambiguities.

3) Collateral credit risk: A shift towards collateral of bettercredit quality, or better credit performance of assetscollateralizing the transaction than Moody's current expectations,can lead to positive CLO performance. Conversely, a negative shiftin credit quality or performance of the collateral can have adverseconsequences for CLO performance.

4) Deleveraging: An important source of uncertainty in thistransaction is whether deleveraging from unscheduled principalproceeds will continue and at what pace. Deleveraging of the CLOcould accelerate owing to high prepayment levels in the loan marketand/or collateral sales by the manager, which could have asignificant impact on the notes' ratings. Note repayments that arefaster than Moody's current expectations will usually have apositive impact on CLO notes, beginning with those with the highestpayment priority.

In addition to the base case analysis, Moody's also conductedsensitivity analyses to test the impact of a number of defaultprobabilities on the rated notes relative to the base case modelingresults, which may be different from the current public ratings ofthe notes. Below is a summary of the impact of different defaultprobabilities (expressed in terms of WARF) on all of the ratednotes (by the difference in the number of notches versus thecurrent model output, for which a positive difference correspondsto lower expected loss):

Moody's Adjusted WARF -- 20% (1863)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class B: +2

Class C: +2

Class D: +1

Moody's Adjusted WARF + 20% (2795)

Class A-1: 0

Class A-2: 0

Class B: -1

Class C: -2

Class D: -1

Loss and Cash Flow Analysis:

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based onthe Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in "Moody's GlobalApproach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations."

The key model inputs Moody's used in its analysis, such as par,weighted average rating factor, diversity score and the weightedaverage recovery rate, are based on its published methodology andcould differ from the trustee's reported numbers. In its base case,Moody's analyzed the collateral pool as having a performing par andprincipal proceeds balance of $264.8 million, no defaulted par, aweighted average default probability of 12.96% (implying a WARF of2329), a weighted average recovery rate upon default of 51.21%, adiversity score of 37 and a weighted average spread of 2.91%(before accounting for LIBOR floors).

Moody's incorporates the default and recovery properties of thecollateral pool in cash flow model analysis where they are subjectto stresses as a function of the target rating on each CLOliability reviewed. Moody's derives the default probability fromthe credit quality of the collateral pool and Moody's expectationof the remaining life of the collateral pool. The average recoveryrate for future defaults is based primarily on the seniority of theassets in the collateral pool.

The upgrade reflects increased credit enhancement from scheduledpaydown. The downgrade is due to realized losses. Fitch modeledlosses of 5% of the remaining pool; expected losses on the originalpool balance total 1.7%, including $16.1 million (1.6% of theoriginal pool balance) in realized losses to date.

As of the January 2016 distribution date, the pool's aggregateprincipal balance has been reduced by 98.67% to $13 million from$980 million at issuance. Since the last rating action, onespecially serviced loan has liquidated with better than expectedrecoveries. There are five loans remaining, four of which (34.2%)are fully amortizing. Interest shortfalls are currently affectingclass Q.

The largest loan in the pool, Georgetown Medical Plaza (46%), is a71,031 square foot (sf) office building located in Indianapolis,IN. The loan reached its anticipated repayment date (ARD) in March2014, and is being cash managed and accruing 2% deferred interest.The loan's final maturity date is in 2034. The loan's debt servicecoverage ratio (DSCR) was 1.39x as of December 2014 and occupancyhas been 100% since issuance by a single tenant. The leaseexpiration is July 2018.

The second largest loan in the pool (20%) is a 20,987 sf officeproperty in Malibu, CA. DSCR was 2.42x as of December 2014 andoccupancy was 100% as of September 2015.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Rating Outlook on class L is Stable, reflecting Fitch'sexpectation of future affirmations. The distressed classes (thoserated below 'B') may be subject to downgrades in the event loanperformance deteriorates, as the transaction is becomingincreasingly concentrated.

DUE DILIGENCE USAGE

No third-party due diligence was provided or reviewed in relationto this rating action.

DBRS does not rate the first loss piece, Class H. The Class PSTcertificates are exchangeable for the Class A-S, B and Ccertificates (and vice versa).

This transaction consists of 63 fixed-rate loans secured by 122commercial properties. There has been one loan repaid sinceissuance, Prospectus ID #45, Walgreens – Austin, Texas, withtotal collateral reduction of 4.3% since issuance as of theDecember 2015 remittance report. The pool is concentrated by loansize as the Top Five and Top Ten loans make up 39.6% and 55.6% ofthe pool, respectively, and there are 17 loans (12.1% of the pool)secured by single-tenant properties. Hotels also represent arelatively significant portion of the pool at seven loans for 15.8%of the transaction balance, with four of those loans in the Top 15.

YE2014 or newer figures were available for all loans in the poolexcept Prospectus ID #17, Sunvalley Shopping Center Fee (1.7% ofthe pool), which shows a most recent debt service coverage ratio(DSCR) of 1.50x as of YE2013. There are ten loans in the Top 15 forwhich no 2015 financial reporting is pulling to the servicer’sreporting files. DBRS has requested information from the serviceron the status of those statements and is awaiting a response. TheYE2014 weighted-average (WA) DSCR for the pool was 1.90 times (x),with a WA debt yield of 10.9% based on the YE2014 net cash flow(NCF) figures and the outstanding loan balance as of the December2015 remittance. These figures compare with the DBRS underwrittenWA DSCR and WA debt yield at issuance of 1.80x and 10.2%,respectively.

There were six loans on the watchlist, comprising 17.6% of the poolbalance, and one loan in special servicing, representing 1.2% ofthe pool, as of the December 2015 remittance report. Two of thewatchlisted loans are in the Top 15, including the largest loan inthe pool. Four of the six loans on the watchlist are reportinghealthy DSCR and occupancy figures and are being monitored forupcoming tenant rollover or relatively minor deferred maintenanceissues.

The largest loan on the watchlist, Prospectus ID #1, Chrysler EastBuilding (12.4% of the pool), is secured by a 745,000 square foot(sf) Class A office property located in Midtown Manhattan at 666East 3rd Avenue. The property benefits from direct access to theGrand Central Terminal and strong sponsorship in Tishman SpeyerProperties (Tishman Speyer). At closing, Tishman Speyer retained a20% equity interest in the property with institutional investorscontributing nearly $200 million in cash equity. This is a paripassu loan, with the A-2 piece placed in the MSBAM 2013-C8transaction. The loan is on the servicer’s watchlist for a lowDSCR, which was 1.03x at Q3 2015, down from 1.92x at YE2014. Thedecline in NCF is the result of declining occupancy at the propertyas the Q3 2015 reporting showed 81.0% occupancy, down from 96.0% atissuance. The property has historically held occupancy at or above95.0% and, according to CoStar, the subject’s Grand Centralsubmarket showed a Class A vacancy rate of 11.0% at January 2016.DBRS has requested a leasing strategy update from the servicer andis awaiting the response. Given the property’s history of strongoccupancy rates and the healthy submarket, DBRS expects that thecurrent vacancy will be successfully recovered in the near term.

The second-largest loan on the watchlist is Prospectus ID #15,Concorde Green Retail (1.9% of the pool). This loan is beingmonitored for a low DSCR at YE2014 and Q2 2015 of 1.04x and 1.00x,respectively, driven by occupancy declines at the property over thepast two years to 78.0% as of the September 2015 rent roll from theissuance level of 90.0%. The loan is secured by a grocery-anchoredretail center comprising 200,000 sf in Glendale Heights, Illinois,a western Chicago suburb. The grocery anchor is Valli Produce,which represents 48.0% of the NRA on a lease through 2038. Theproperty is well located along North Avenue, a heavily traffickedthoroughfare for this and surrounding suburbs. The servicer reportsthat the borrower is actively marketing the vacant space for lease,with no rental concessions being offered as of December 2015. DBRSwill continue to monitor the loan for developments.

There is one loan in special servicing, Prospectus ID #25, OakridgeOffice Park (1.2% of the pool). The loan is secured by a 316,000 sfoffice and data center complex located in Orlando, Florida. Thepark was built in phases between 1966 and 1983, with renovationsmost recently completed in 2005. The loan transferred to specialservicing in June 2014 when the borrower stopped making paymentsfollowing a space reduction for the property’s largest tenant,AT&T, which occupied approximately 34.0% of the NRA and reduced itsspace by half. The property also lost a tenant, which previouslyoccupied approximately 9.5% of the NRA, to bankruptcy. According toCoStar, Class B properties in the subject’s Orlando Central Parksubmarket have hovered between 20.0% and 25.0% vacancy since 2011,with vacancy at 17.2% as of January 2015. The special servicerreports an occupancy rate of 48.0% for the property as of August2015.

A January 2015 appraisal valued the property at $16.0 million, downfrom the issuance value of $24.0 million. The January 2015appraisal implies value just over the outstanding trust exposure asof December 2015 but, given the slow leasing activity at theproperty within a relatively stable submarket, DBRS believes thatthe property could be slow to trade, which could increase thelikelihood of a loss to the trust. The special servicer reportsthat a deed-in-lieu is in escrow, with the workout strategy beingdual tracked between marketing the property for sale through thereceiver (which has been in place since February 2015) andforeclosure as of the December 2015 remittance report. DBRS willmonitor the situation closely for developments.

The continued CreditWatch listings reflect S&P's ongoing review ofthe performance of certain models used to estimate collateral cashflows for U.S. residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) backedby HECM reverse mortgage loans. Since the initial CreditWatchplacement, S&P has confirmed that one or more errors exist in thecoding or documentation for these models. S&P has yet to determinethe materiality of these errors or the extent to which they willresult in any change to the current ratings. Based on S&P'sfindings from the review, it will raise, lower, affirm, or withdrawthe ratings as it deems appropriate.

Moody's Investors Service confirmed the Ba1 rating on New York LawSchool's existing $126 million of Series 2006A and 2006B RevenueBonds, for which redemption notices were issued on January 13,2016. Today's action concludes the review for downgrade initiatedon October 30, 2015.

The confirmation reflects the recent pricing, and expected closing,of the Series 2015 Revenue Refunding Bonds (Baa3 negative) thatwill be used to fully refund the Series 2006A and 2006B bonds. Therated Series 2015 bonds had a legal name change to RevenueRefunding Bonds, Series 2016.

Subsequent to the redemption of the Series 2006A and 2006B Bonds,which is expected to occur by the end of January 2016, the Ba1rating will be withdrawn in accordance with Moody's Policy forWithdrawal of Credit Ratings.

RATING OUTLOOK

The negative outlook reflects significant instability in theschool's operating environment that could result in larger deficitsthan currently anticipated. The school's significant financialreserves are the fundamental underpinning for the rating, so amaterial market correction could also result in rating pressures.

NOMURA HOME 2005-FM1: Moody's Hikes Cl. I-A Debt Rating to Ba1(sf)------------------------------------------------------------------Moody's Investors Service has upgraded the ratings of six tranchesfrom three transactions, backed by Subprime loans, issued by MorganStanley and Nomura.

The ratings upgraded are a result of the improving performance ofthe related pools and an increase in credit enhancement availableto the bonds. The rating actions reflect the recent performance ofthe underlying pools and Moody's updated loss expectation on thepools.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating:

Ratings in the US RMBS sector remain exposed to the high level ofmacroeconomic uncertainty, and in particular the unemployment rate.The unemployment rate fell to 5.0% in December 2015 from 5.6% inDecember 2014. Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range of4.5% to 5.5% for the 2016 year. Deviations from this centralscenario could lead to rating actions in the sector.

House prices are another key driver of US RMBS performance. Moody'sexpects house prices to continue to rise in 2016. Lower increasesthan Moody's expects or decreases could lead to negative ratingactions.

Finally, performance of RMBS continues to remain highly dependenton servicer procedures. Any change resulting from servicingtransfers or other policy or regulatory change can impact theperformance of these transactions.

The class A-1 (voting) and A-1 (nonvoting) notes are identical interms of payment priority and credit support, so S&P rates theclasses equally. Previously, the class A-1 notes assigned theirvoting rights to another party, which created the second class ofnotes.

The rating actions follow S&P's review of the transaction'sperformance, using data from the December 2015 trustee report, aswell as the application of S&P's updated corporate collateralizeddebt obligation (CDO) criteria.

The upgrades reflect the increased credit support available to therated notes due to the paydown of $93.54 million to the class A-1notes since S&P's January 2013 rating actions. Primarily due tothese paydowns, the transaction's credit support has improved viahigher overcollateralization (O/C) ratios (except for class D)since the January 2013 trustee report, which S&P reviewed beforetaking its January 2013 actions.

The December 2015 trustee report stated these O/C ratios:

-- The class A O/C ratio was 126.74%, compared with 119.96% in January 2013;

-- The class B O/C ratio was 114.47%, compared with 111.53% in January 2013;

-- The class C O/C ratio was 108.36%, compared with 107.13% in January 2013; and

-- The class D O/C ratio was 103.55%, compared with 103.59% in January 2013.

S&P's January 2013 rating actions were driven by the application ofthe largest-obligor default test, a supplemental test included inits criteria for rating corporate cash flow CDOs. Excess spread isincorporated into the calculation of the largest-obligor defaulttest, as per the Sept. 17, 2015 update to S&P's criteria. The testwas applied as part of this review, and the rating action on theclass D notes is no longer driven by the application of thelargest-obligor default test.

"Our review of this transaction included a cash flow analysis,based on the portfolio and transaction as reflected in theaforementioned trustee report, to estimate future performance. Inline with our criteria, our cash flow analysis appliedforward-looking assumptions on the expected timing and pattern ofdefaults, as well as recoveries upon default, under variousinterest rate and macroeconomic scenarios. In addition, ouranalysis considered the transaction's ability to pay timelyinterest and/or ultimate principal to each of the rated tranches.The results of the cash flow analysis demonstrated, in our view,that all of the rated outstanding classes have adequate creditenhancement available at the rating levels associated with theserating actions," S&P said.

S&P will continue to review whether the ratings assigned to thenotes remain consistent with the credit enhancement available tosupport them, and will take rating actions as it deems necessary.

(i) The cash flow implied rating considers the actual spread,coupon, and recovery of the underlying collateral.

(ii) The cash flow cushion is the excess of the tranche break-evendefault rate (BDR) above the scenario default rate (SDR) at theassigned rating for a given class of rated notes using the actualspread, coupon, and recovery.

RECOVERY RATE AND CORRELATION SENSITIVITY

In addition to S&P's base-case analysis, it generated additionalscenarios in which it made negative adjustments of 10% to thecurrent collateral pool's recovery rates relative to each tranche'sweighted average recovery rate.

S&P also generated other scenarios by adjusting the intra- andinter-industry correlations to assess the current portfolio'ssensitivity to different correlation assumptions assuming thecorrelation scenarios outlined below.

Moody's ratings of the Rated Notes address the expected lossesposed to noteholders. The ratings reflect the risks due to defaultson the underlying portfolio of loans, the transaction's legalstructure, and the characteristics of the underlying assets.

OHA Credit Partners XII, Ltd. is a managed cash flow CLO. Theissued notes will be collateralized primarily by broadly syndicatedfirst lien senior secured corporate loans. At least 96% of theportfolio must be invested in senior secured loans and up to 4% ofthe portfolio may consist of second lien loans. The underlyingcollateral pool is approximately 80% ramped as of the closingdate.

Oak Hill Advisors, L.P. (the "Manager") will direct the selection,acquisition and disposition of collateral on behalf of the Issuerand may engage in trading activity, including discretionarytrading, during the transaction's five year reinvestment period.Thereafter, the Manager may reinvest unscheduled principal paymentsand proceeds from sales of credit risk assets, subject to certainrestrictions.

In addition to the Rated Notes, the Issuer issued subordinatednotes. The transaction incorporates interest and par coverage testswhich, if triggered, divert interest and principal proceeds to paydown the notes in order of seniority.

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based onthe Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3.2.1of the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized LoanObligations" rating methodology published in December 2015.

For modeling purposes, Moody's used the following base-caseassumptions:

Par amount: $600,000,000

Diversity Score: 50

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 3035

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 4.25%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 48.50%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 8.0 years

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "Moody's GlobalApproach to Rating Collateralized Loan Obligations" published inDecember 2015.

Factors That Would Lead to an Upgrade or Downgrade of the Rating:

The performance of the Rated Notes is subject to uncertainty. Theperformance of the Rated Notes is sensitive to the performance ofthe underlying portfolio, which in turn depends on economic andcredit conditions that may change. The Manager's investmentdecisions and management of the transaction will also affect theperformance of the Rated Notes.

Together with the set of modeling assumptions above, Moody'sconducted an additional sensitivity analysis, which was a componentin determining the ratings assigned to the Rated Notes. Thissensitivity analysis includes increased default probabilityrelative to the base case.

Below is a summary of the impact of an increase in defaultprobability (expressed in terms of WARF level) on the Rated Notes(shown in terms of the number of notch difference versus thecurrent model output, whereby a negative difference corresponds tohigher expected losses), assuming all other factors are heldequal:

S&P withdrew the preliminary ratings because SMBC Aviation CapitalLtd., the seller and servicer for Orbit, has withdrawn thetransaction from the market.

PRELIMINARY RATINGS WITHDRAWN

Orbit Aircraft Leasing Ltd./Orbit Aircraft Leasing USA LLC

Class To From

A-1 NR A- (sf)B-1 NR BBB (sf)C-1 NR BB (sf)

NR--Not rated.

SLM PRIVATE 2007-A: Fitch Affirms 'BB+sf' Rating on Class C-1 Debt------------------------------------------------------------------Fitch Ratings upgrades the ratings of the class B notes of the SLMPrivate Credit Student Loan Trust 2007-A to 'A-sf'. The class A andC notes are affirmed at 'AA-sf' and 'BB+sf', respectively. TheRating Outlook remains Stable for all of the notes.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Collateral Quality: The trust is collateralized by approximately$1.25 billion of private student loans. The loans were originatedby Navient Corp (fka SLM Corp) under the Signature Education LoanProgram, LAWLOANS program, MBA Loans program, and MEDLOANS program.The projected remaining defaults are expected to range between10%-15%. A recovery rate of 11% was applied, which was determinedto be appropriate based on data provided by the issuer.

Credit Enhancement: Transaction credit enhancement is sufficient toprovide loss coverage for the Class A, B, and C notes at eachrespective rating category. CE is provided by a combination ofovercollateralization (the excess of the trust's asset balance overthe bond balance), excess spread, and subordination. The reportedtotal parity ratio as of the most recent distribution is 104.13%.

Adequate Liquidity Support: Liquidity support is provided by areserve account sized at approximately $5 million.

Servicing Capabilities: Day-to-day servicing is provided by NavientSolutions Inc., which has demonstrated satisfactoryservicingcapabilities.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

As Fitch's base case default proxy is derived primarily fromhistorical collateral performance, actual performance may differfrom the expected performance, resulting in higher loss levels thanthe base case. This will result in a decline in CE and remainingloss coverage levels available to the bonds and may make certainbond ratings susceptible to potential negative rating actions,depending on the extent of the decline in coverage. Fitch willcontinue to monitor the performance of the trust

DUE DILIGENCE USAGE

No third party due diligence was provided or reviewed in relationto this rating action.

The provisional ratings are based on a review by DBRS of thefollowing analytical considerations:

-- Transaction capital structure, proposed ratings and form and sufficiency of available credit enhancement.

-- Credit enhancement is in the form of overcollateralization, subordination, amounts held in the reserve fund and excess spread. Credit enhancement levels are sufficient to support DBRS-projected expected cumulative net loss assumptions under various stress scenarios.

-- The ability of the transaction to withstand stressed cash flow

assumptions and repay investors according to the terms in which they have invested. For this transaction, the ratings address the payment of timely interest on a monthly basis and principal by the legal final maturity date.

-- The transaction parties’ capabilities with regard to originations, underwriting and servicing and the existence of an experienced and capable backup servicer.

-- DBRS has performed an operational risk review of United Auto Credit Corporation (UACC) and considers the entity to be an acceptable originator and servicer of subprime automobile loan

contracts with an acceptable backup servicer.

-- The UACC senior management team has considerable experience and a successful track record within the auto finance industry.

-- The Company successfully consolidated its business into a centralized servicing platform and has consolidated originations to two regional buying centers. UACC retained experienced managers and staff at the servicing center and buying centers, most of whom were associated with the Company prior to the reorganization.

-- UACC has tightened its underwriting standards and has implemented a risk management system, centralized oversight of

all underwriting and improved its technology system to provide

daily metrics on all originations, servicing and collections of loans.

-- The credit quality of the collateral and performance ofUACC’s auto loan portfolio.

-- UACC’s origination of collateral, which has a shorter term, higher down payment, lower book value and higher income requirements.

-- The legal structure and presence of legal opinions, which address the true sale of the assets to the Issuer, the non- consolidation of the special-purpose vehicle with UACC, that the trust has a valid first-priority security interest in the assets and consistency with the "DBRS Legal Criteria for U.S. Structured Finance" methodology.

-- The likelihood of timely interest and principal payments by the assumed legal final maturity dates under stressed cash flow modeling scenarios that are appropriate for the assigned preliminary ratings.

-- S&P's expectation that under a moderate ('BBB') stress scenario, the ratings on the class A, B, and C notes would not decline by more than one rating category and on the class D would not decline by more than two rating categories. Under this scenario, the preliminary 'BB (sf)' rated class E notes would not decline by more than two rating categories in the first year, but would ultimately default in a 'BBB' stress scenario, as expected. These potential rating movements are consistent with S&P's credit stability criteria, which outline the outer bound of credit deterioration as a one-category downgrade within the first year for 'AAA (sf)' and 'AA (sf)' rated securities, a two- category downgrade within the first year for 'A (sf)' through 'BB (sf)' rated securities under moderate stress conditions, and default for 'BB (sf)' rated securities over a three year period.

-- The credit enhancement in the form of subordination, overcollateralization, a reserve account, and excess spread.

-- The collateral characteristics of the subprime pool being securitized. It is approximately five-months seasoned, with

a weighted average original term of approximately 41 months and an average remaining term of about 36 months. Approximately 17.21% of the loans have an original term of 49-60 months, and as a result, S&P expects the pool will pay

down more quickly than many other subprime pools with longer

loan terms.

-- S&P's analysis of six years of static pool data following the credit crisis and after United Auto Credit Corp. (UACC) centralized its operations and shifted toward shorter loan terms. S&P also reviewed the performance of UACC's two outstanding securitizations and its paid-off transactions (2012-1 and 2013-1).

VAUGHN COLLEGE: S&P Lowers Rating on 2006 Revenue Bonds to 'BB-'----------------------------------------------------------------Standard & Poor's Ratings Services lowered its long-term rating to'BB-' from 'BB' on the New York City Industrial DevelopmentAgency's series 2006 revenue bonds, issued on behalf of VaughnCollege of Aeronautics and Technology (VCAT). The outlook isstable.

The downgrade is based on S&P's revised criteria, "Methodology:Not-For-Profit Public And Private Colleges And Universities",published Jan. 6, 2016.

"We assessed VCAT's financial profile as vulnerable, with weakoperating performance despite supplemental endowment draws tosupport operations, high student dependence, and above-average debtburden. Combined, we believe these credit factors lead to anindicative stand-alone credit profile of 'bb'. As our criteriaindicate, the final rating can be within one notch of theindicative credit level. In our opinion, the 'BB-' rating on thecollege's bonds better reflect VCAT's status as a specialty schoolwith niche programming, as well as the effect of what we believeare historically high unsustainable endowment draws above thecollege's spending policy of 5%. These draws are projected tocontinue through fiscal 2019," S&P said.

"In our view, the supplemental endowment draw has historicallylimited growth in available resources which are, in our view, onlyadequate for the rating level. While we understand that managementhas budgeted to return to an endowment draw of approximately 5% to5.1% in fiscal 2016 and beyond, it is our opinion that the collegecould potentially continue to rely on supplemental draws in thelonger term to offset budget pressures. Such reliance could furtherlimit growth in available resources," S&P noted.

Moody's ratings of the Rated Notes address the expected lossesposed to noteholders. The ratings reflect the risks due to defaultson the underlying portfolio of assets, the transaction's legalstructure, and the characteristics of the underlying assets.

Webster Park CLO, Ltd. is a managed cash flow CLO. The issued noteswill be collateralized primarily by broadly syndicated first liensenior secured corporate loans. At least 96% of the portfolio mustconsist of senior secured loans and eligible investments, and up to4% of the portfolio may consist of loans that are not seniorsecured loans. "We expect the portfolio to be approximately 80%ramped as of the closing date."

GSO/Blackstone Debt Funds Management LLC (the "Manager") willdirect the selection, acquisition and disposition of the assets onbehalf of the Issuer and may engage in trading activity, includingdiscretionary trading, during the transaction's 4.75-yearreinvestment period. Thereafter, the Manager may reinvestunscheduled principal payments and proceeds from sales of creditrisk assets, subject to certain restrictions.

In addition to the Rated Notes, the Issuer issued subordinatednotes. The transaction incorporates interest and par coverage testswhich, if triggered, divert interest and principal proceeds to paydown the notes in order of seniority.

Moody's modeled the transaction using a cash flow model based onthe Binomial Expansion Technique, as described in Section 2.3.2.1of the "Moody's Global Approach to Rating Collateralized LoanObligations" rating methodology published in December 2015.

For modeling purposes, Moody's used the following base-caseassumptions:

Par amount: $500,000,000

Diversity Score: 60

Weighted Average Rating Factor (WARF): 2850

Weighted Average Spread (WAS): 3.70%

Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): 7.00%

Weighted Average Recovery Rate (WARR): 47.0%

Weighted Average Life (WAL): 8 years

Methodology Underlying the Rating Action

Factors That Would Lead to an Upgrade or Downgrade of the Rating:

The performance of the Rated Notes is subject to uncertainty. Theperformance of the Rated Notes is sensitive to the performance ofthe underlying portfolio, which in turn depends on economic andcredit conditions that may change. The Manager's investmentdecisions and management of the transaction will also affect theperformance of the Rated Notes.

Together with the set of modeling assumptions above, Moody'sconducted an additional sensitivity analysis, which was a componentin determining the ratings assigned to the Rated Notes. Thissensitivity analysis includes increased default probabilityrelative to the base case.

Below is a summary of the impact of an increase in defaultprobability (expressed in terms of WARF level) on the Rated Notes(shown in terms of the number of notch difference versus thecurrent model output, whereby a negative difference corresponds tohigher expected losses), assuming that all other factors are heldequal:

The affirmations are based on the stable performance of theunderlying collateral pool. As of the January 2016 distribution,the pool's aggregate principal balance has been paid down by 2.2%to $1.41 billion from $1.44 billion at issuance. 100% of the loansreported full year 2014 financials and 95% of the pool reportpartial year 2015 financials. Based on the annualized 2015financials, the pool's overall net operating income (NOI) hasincreased 8.2% over the reported portfolio NOI at issuance.

There are six loans (9.81%) on the servicer watchlist, four (1.23%)of which are on the watchlist due to concerns with increasingvacancy rate at the properties and the lack of information from thesponsors regarding progress on leasing activity. The remaining twoloans (8.58%) are on the servicer list for a lack of information orresponse to the servicer loan inquiries. None of the loans on thewatchlist are considered Fitch Loans of Concern. One loan (1%) isin special servicing.

The specially serviced loan, Minot Hotel Portfolio, iscollateralized by two hotels, the Holiday Inn Riverside and HolidayInn Express, comprising of 238 rooms located in the town of Minot,ND which is 110 miles north of the state capital of Bismarck. Atissuance, the portfolio was performing well with occupancy at 67%and a debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) of 2.77 times (x). Performance decreased significantly during 2015 as the marketexpanded with 12 new hotels opening during the preceding 12 monthsas well as decline in demand due to dropping oil prices. Thesponsor commenced with a large property improvement plan and anumber of units were decommissioned during the renovation.Performance may improve in 2016 as work is completed; however,Fitch will monitor the loan as the sponsor updates the servicer onthe portfolio's operation during the first half of 2016. Fitchlosses are based on current cashflow and a stressed cap rate.

The largest loan is collateralized by a 56-story, 1,302,107 squarefoot (sf) Republic Plaza, a class A, LEED EB Gold certified urbanoffice property located in Denver, CO (11%). The property islocated within the central business district approximately twoblocks from the city's primary mass transit stations and minutesfrom the city's major freeways. The sponsor of the property isBrookfield Properties Investor Corporation, a wholly owned entityof Brookfield Office Properties, Inc. The property serves as theheadquarters for three major corporate entities, Encana (35% ofNRA, lease expiration April 2019), DCP Midstream (12% of NRA, leaseexpiration May 2016), and Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell (6% of NRA, leaseexpiration January 2023). The subject commands some of the highestrates in the submarket and a number of tenant leases are scheduledto roll during the term of the loan. During the past 12 months,more than one million square feet of office space has beencompleted in the market which has placed downward pressure onrental rates. Fitch will monitor the loan as the sponsor works torenew a number of tenants, including DCP Midstream, in acompetitive leasing environment.

Fitch continues to monitor the performance of the CommunityCorporate Center, the fifteenth largest loan in the pool (1.1%).The loan is collateralized by 255,371 sf office property located insuburban Columbus, OH. The subject has a diverse rent roll of 25distinct tenants with the top five comprising only 45.9% of the netrentable area (NRA). However, tenant rollover at the property isconcentrated over the next 36 months with 24.1% and 11.2% of theNRA rolling in 2016 and 2018, respectively. A leasing reserve wasestablished at issuance to mitigate the risk and costs associatedwith renewing the existing tenants in a highly competitive marketenvironment.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

The Rating Outlook for all classes remains Stable. Due to therecent issuance of the transaction and stable performance, Fitchdoes not foresee positive or negative ratings migration until amaterial economic or asset level event changes the transaction'sportfolio-level metrics.

DUE DILIGENCE USAGE

No third-party due diligence was provided or reviewed in relationto this rating action.

The upgrades are a result of improving performance of the relatedpools and/or build-up in credit enhancement of the tranches. Theactions reflect the recent performance of the underlying pools andMoody's updated loss expectations on the pools.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating:

Ratings in the US RMBS sector remain exposed to the high level ofmacroeconomic uncertainty, and in particular the unemployment rate.The unemployment rate fell to 5.0% in December 2015 from 5.6% inDecember 2014. Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range of4.5% to 5.5% for the 2016 year. Deviations from this centralscenario could lead to rating actions in the sector. House pricesare another key driver of US RMBS performance. Moody's expectshouse prices to continue to rise in 2016. Lower increases thanMoody's expects or decreases could lead to negative rating actions.Finally, performance of RMBS continues to remain highly dependenton servicer procedures.

[*] Moody's Takes Action on $45.4MM of RMBS Issued 2005-2008------------------------------------------------------------Moody's Investors Service has downgraded the ratings of threetranches and upgraded the ratings of three tranches backed by PrimeJumbo RMBS loans, issued by miscellaneous issuers.

The actions are a result of the recent performance of theunderlying pools and reflect Moody's updated loss expectations onthe pools. The ratings downgraded are due to the weaker performanceof the underlying collateral and the erosion of enhancementavailable to the bonds. The ratings upgraded are a result of theimproving performance of the related pools and the benefit providedby support classes that absorb losses otherwise allocable to theupgraded bonds.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating:

Ratings in the US RMBS sector remain exposed to the high level ofmacroeconomic uncertainty, and in particular the unemployment rate.The unemployment rate fell to 5.0% in December 2015 from 5.6% inDecember 2014. Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range of4.5% to 5.5% for the 2016 year. Deviations from this centralscenario could lead to rating actions in the sector.

House prices are another key driver of US RMBS performance. Moody'sexpects house prices to continue to rise in 2016. Lower increasesthan Moody's expects or decreases could lead to negative ratingactions.

Finally, performance of RMBS continues to remain highly dependenton servicer procedures. Any change resulting from servicingtransfers or other policy or regulatory change can impact theperformance of these transactions.

The rating actions are a result of the recent performance of theunderlying pools and reflects Moody's updated loss expectation onthese pools. The ratings upgraded are due to the strongerperformance of the underlying collateral and the credit enhancementavailable to the bonds. The ratings downgraded are due to theweaker performance of the underlying collateral and the depletionof credit enhancement available to the bonds.

The principal methodology used in these ratings was "US RMBSSurveillance Methodology" published in November 2013.

Factors that would lead to an upgrade or downgrade of the rating:

Ratings in the US RMBS sector remain exposed to the high level ofmacroeconomic uncertainty, and in particular the unemployment rate. The unemployment rate fell to 5.0% in December 2015 from 5.6% inDecember 2014. Moody's forecasts an unemployment central range of4.5% to 5.5% for the 2016 year. Deviations from this centralscenario could lead to rating actions in the sector.

House prices are another key driver of US RMBS performance. Moody'sexpects house prices to continue to rise in 2016. Lower increasesthan Moody's expects or decreases could lead to negative ratingactions.

Finally, performance of RMBS continues to remain highly dependenton servicer procedures. Any change resulting from servicingtransfers or other policy or regulatory change can impact theperformance of these transactions.

The CreditWatch placements reflect the likely application of S&P'sloan modification criteria. S&P needs to further investigate theweighted average coupon deterioration in the affected pools beforedetermining what effect such deterioration may have on S&P'sratings on those classes.

[*] S&P Reinstates Ratings on 73 Classes From 4 US RMBS Deals-------------------------------------------------------------Standard & Poor's Ratings Services corrected by reinstating itsratings on 73 classes from four U.S. residential mortgage-backedsecurities (RMBS) resecuritized real estate mortgage investmentconduit (re-REMIC) transactions. These ratings were inadvertentlydiscontinued on Jan. 7, 2016, when S&P discontinued the ratings oncertain other classes from the same transactions pursuant to itspolicies and procedures. S&P has reinstated the ratings on the 73classes that were incorrectly discontinued at that time.

All of the rating actions concern the application of S&P's loanmodification and imputed promises criteria.

CREDITWATCH PLACEMENTS

S&P placed its ratings on 204 classes on CreditWatch with negativeimplications.

Of these CreditWatch placements, 187 reflect S&P's lack ofinformation necessary to apply its loan modification criteria afterit made multiple requests to the applicable trustees or servicersfor such information.

Per "S&P's Steps For Obtaining Necessary Information To ApplyRecently Effective U.S. RMBS Criteria," published on Aug. 24, 2015,which describes our process for requesting information related toloan modifications and the potential outcomes if S&P was unable tocollect that information, Standard & Poor's may considerwithdrawing the ratings placed on CreditWatch if it does notreceive the information it requested in order to apply S&P'sapplicable criteria within 30 days of the CreditWatch placement.

The remaining 17 CreditWatch placements reflect the likelyapplication of S&P's loan modification criteria. S&P needs tofurther investigate the weighted average coupon deterioration inthe affected pools before determining what effect suchdeterioration may have on S&P's ratings for those classes.

DOWNGRADES

S&P lowered its ratings on 52 classes from U.S. RMBS transactions.The downgrades reflect the application of S&P's imputed promisescriteria.

Eighteen of S&P's ratings on these classes were lowered even thoughthey are insurance-wrapped RMBS. Although the insurer may havemade full interest payments under the insurance policy terms, theinterest payments to the bondholders have been reduced due to loanmodifications or other credit related events.

AFFIRMATIONS

S&P affirmed its ratings on eight classes and removed them fromCreditWatch with negative implications. The affirmations reflectthe application of S&P's imputed promises criteria.

Monday's edition of the TCR delivers a list of indicative pricesfor bond issues that reportedly trade well below par. Prices areobtained by TCR editors from a variety of outside sources duringthe prior week we think are reliable. Those sources may not,however, be complete or accurate. The Monday Bond Pricing tableis compiled on the Friday prior to publication. Prices reportedare not intended to reflect actual trades. Prices for actualtrades are probably different. Our objective is to shareinformation, not make markets in publicly traded securities.Nothing in the TCR constitutes an offer or solicitation to buy orsell any security of any kind. It is likely that some entityaffiliated with a TCR editor holds some position in the issuerspublic debt and equity securities about which we report.

Each Tuesday edition of the TCR contains a list of companies withinsolvent balance sheets whose shares trade higher than $3 pershare in public markets. At first glance, this list may look likethe definitive compilation of stocks that are ideal to sell short.Don't be fooled. Assets, for example, reported at historical costnet of depreciation may understate the true value of a firm'sassets. A company may establish reserves on its balance sheet forliabilities that may never materialize. The prices at whichequity securities trade in public market are determined by morethan a balance sheet solvency test.

On Thursdays, the TCR delivers a list of recently filedChapter 11 cases involving less than $1,000,000 in assets andliabilities delivered to nation's bankruptcy courts. The listincludes links to freely downloadable images of these small-dollarpetitions in Acrobat PDF format.

Each Friday's edition of the TCR includes a review about a book ofinterest to troubled company professionals. All titles areavailable at your local bookstore or through Amazon.com. Go tohttp://www.bankrupt.com/books/to order any title today.

Monthly Operating Reports are summarized in every Saturday editionof the TCR.

The Sunday TCR delivers securitization rating news from the weekthen-ending.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers. Information containedherein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but isnot guaranteed.

The TCR subscription rate is $975 for 6 months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.